5 ms·

Yes, Global Warming Could Mean More Snow

15 points by rblion 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
viggity 16y ago
Everything can't be proof of global warming. The climate is not getting "weirder". The weather is the weather; It is intrinsically random. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613...
- rblion 16y ago
  I don't think everything is proof of 'global warming'. I honestly don't how much is in our hands and how much isn't. Interesting article. I like what he wrote... "That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help."
jameskilton 16y ago
This is why people are using the term "global weirding" or just "climate change" instead. Yes, the Earth actually is warming. The average temperature of the entire Earth is going up. If you've taken elementary Math you'll understand that if an average increases that means the extremes of the dataset have gotten more extreme (more extreme colds, more extreme heat). How we came to be a society that views science, logic, and rational thought as the enemy of social progression I'll never know. I'm sure there's money in it somewhere.
- amock 16y ago
  An increasing average does not mean that the extremes are more extreme. That's a possibility but definitely not a certainty and it could easily be the case that neither extreme changes while the average varies arbitrarily close to them.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > If you've taken elementary Math you'll understand that if an average increases that means the extremes of the dataset have gotten more extreme (more extreme colds, more extreme heat). Um, no, it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to raise the average and reduce the extremes. You can tell nothing about the variation in a dataset from the average.
- anon2345 16y ago
  Climate change is not logical nor is it scientific, whatever happens is construed as evidence of 'climate change'. There's no falsifiable hypothesis.
  - ugh 16y ago
    If average (!) temperatures don’t increase over the next few decades (!), climate change is falsified. Easy as that.
- nika 16y ago
  Since the end of the last solar peak, the planet has been getting cooler. Since the end of the last ice age, the planet has been getting warmer. You can argue whatever direction you want by picking the dates. We came to be a society that views science, logic and rational thought as the enemy of progress because we started letting political ideology substitute for science. It seems a political figure (in this case Al Gore) making the claim plus political bodies putting out junk science (in this case the IPCC) is all the "proof" that is needed to close off from discussion the possibility that it isn't happening for people ideologically predisposed to believe in it. I understand this tendency because I've recognized in myself belief in things that I later realized I couldn't prove. These people are a major political movement in the USA and other parts of the world that sees themselves as having a monopoly on science, reason, logic and rationality, and which believes that their opponents are religious and evil, and therefore, -- quite ironically-- seems to feel that proof, data, argument and science are not necessary. All that seemingly is necessary to this movement is their conviction that this effect is happening. A conviction bolstered by being able to easily point to political propaganda that supports the claim, but that is not scientific. Of course, when one questions the claims made on such sites, the proponents insist that the sites represent "science" and the "deniers" are nobody to question them. (which is argument from authority, and I believe argument from false authority, both logical fallacies.) This makes actual scientific discussion essentially impossible. Look at your post, you made several claims and did so in the tone of it being obvious that what you say is right and consequently anyone who doesn't agree is being irrational. Do you think that glaciers, on the balance are receding or advancing? What ever your opinion, why do you believe it? Because you saw an article somewhere? Or have you reviewed the changes in the length of a statistical sample of glaciers? Actually, do you know how many glaciers make a statistical sample? I don't- I'm not trying to trick you. But if you don't know, how can you know if a study that counted that many is valid? But you're right about one thing. There is money in it. More importantly, control. The politicians want more control, they always do, and cap & trade, CO2 reduction and all these proposals for laws all result in more control. That control is easy to turn into money- just threaten to tighten the screws on whatever industry you want to make a "donation". Al Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire if cap & trade passes and the business he set up for trading carbon credits turns into a real business. Imagine having a near monopoly on intrinsically worthless contracts that suddenly get a lot of value under government regulation, and of course who can trade them and how is also subject to government regulation. I have skepticism about global warming, but I haven't seen enough quality data to reach a conclusion. But I am tired, and I am irritated that I've never seen a global warming advocate who could provide quality data either, yet massive numbers of people believe this, based on political ideology and propaganda, near as I can tell. I'm sure you were sincere in your belief that a higher average means for greater extremes. It kinda sounds like it is a logical conclusion, right? More energy in the system therefore wider variation, right? But it is not scientific, to make the argument requires a hell of a lot more than saying "if you've taken elementary math", which is a mean thing to say if you think about it, right? How many glaciers makes a statistical sample? Serious question. Edit: I tried several times to edit this to make it more concise, but failed miserably, alas.
Luyt 16y ago
The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder. Some places will get more precipitation, other places will become dryer. The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about the history of climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm sorry and I mean this in the least insulting way I can manage but how on earth can you not see the contradiction there? You actually said... The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder. And then one sentence later say... The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about the history of climate An Ice Core is a snapshot of conditions present in the area where the snow that makes it up froze. Weather readings from an Ice Core are only accurate to determine the weather in that one area not the overall climate. I don't even care about the Global Warming angle (every HN thread I've ever seen on the topic just devolves into partisan bickering) but the fact that you can't see that contradiction is disturbing.
  - moe 16y ago
    Why not read the wikipedia page he linked before attacking him like that? An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      How would that work? I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? And if it's really possible to determine global climate from one location than why do we have all these weather stations around the world? The answer is "because it isn't possible". Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. Any information determined from that regarding the global climate is extrapolation. The text you quote is describing an extrapolation as an absolute. Or in other words just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true.
zeteo 16y ago
"...scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe." Names? Papers? Dates and predictions?
- ugh 16y ago
  It’s a newspaper article. Those don’t come with citations and never have. To expect them is just crazy.
cletus 16y ago
Global warming pisses me off because it isn't so much science as it is religion. Whether it gets hotter, colder, drier, wetter or whatever some will take that to be "proof" of global warming just as others will claim the opposite. The really offensive thing to me is the science part. Papers that don't provide facts or, in some cases, sources for their facts, publications that give such shoddy work a free pass because it happens to agree with their editorial stance. Organizations that go out of their say to smear and silence skeptics. The list goes on. Whatever the case climate models have a pretty poor track record when it comes to making predictions. Last month I saw something about climate on Discovery. It was talking about "Snowball Earth", the period nearly 600 million years ago when ice extended to the equator. The show claimed that we could trigger such an event. What's more, snow and ice reflect sunlight that could cause a (excuse the pun) snowball effect: as the ice grows it gets colder. What many seem to forget are two things: 1. What they're describing is called a divergent system. We don't live in such a system because, if we did, the earth would've either frozen solid or boiled away in the last 4 billion years and we wouldn't be here; and 2. The earth is an incredibly complex system with many interplaying variables such that making predictions and identifying cause and effect is incredibly hard. They way I see it, the pro-AGW crowd need to: 1. Prove the earth is warming. This is far from fact. For one, it depends on your point of reference. Compared to 1890 it's warmer and for this reason the link to the Industrial Revolution and fossil fuels likes to be drawn but what about 500 years ago? 5000? 5 million? The earth has been an awful lot hotter than it is now. 2. that warming is man-made; 3. That warming is bad. It'd be bad for some but I guarantee you it'd be good for others. 4. Human intervention can alter the result; 5. That cost isn't prohibitive. as far as I'm concerned we haven't even settled (1) yet. In the meantime those that raise such questions are demonized. Those that benefit from offending industries aren't the least bit interested in the truth either. Instead of science we have politics and religion. But I for one am sick of hearing that whatever happens is somehow proof of global warming.
- nika 16y ago
  You reference the snowball earth, and I'd like to point out (or emphasize) the opposite applies as well. Many times in the past (as I understand it) CO2 levels have been dramatically higher than they are today. If a runaway greenhouse effect was likely triggered by these tiny increases in CO2 (as proportion of atmosphere) claimed by proponents of AGW, wouldn't it have been triggered in the past, when CO2 levels were vastly higher? Two opposite situations that one could plausibly argue would result in a runaway effect to an extreme equilibrium where humans couldn't survive. They both sound plausible, but despite having experienced both ice ages and dramatically higher CO2 (and temperatures) in the past, the predictions have not happened.
kaffiene 16y ago
Hmm. Software engineers get all pissy when some Pointy Head Boss tells them how to suck eggs because the IT guys are the experts and the marketdroids don't know what they're talking about... but when 90+% of climate scientists say that Global Warming is real and humans are a causal factor then ALL OF A SUDDEN, we're all climate experts and what would those pesky scientists know about it anyway. You guys are really fucking arrogant. I'm ashamed to be associated with you.

15 points by rblion 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Everything can't be proof of global warming. The climate is not getting "weirder". The weather is the weather; It is intrinsically random. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613...

rblion 16y ago
I don't think everything is proof of 'global warming'. I honestly don't how much is in our hands and how much isn't. Interesting article. I like what he wrote... "That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help."

jameskilton 16y ago

This is why people are using the term "global weirding" or just "climate change" instead. Yes, the Earth actually is warming. The average temperature of the entire Earth is going up. If you've taken elementary Math you'll understand that if an average increases that means the extremes of the dataset have gotten more extreme (more extreme colds, more extreme heat). How we came to be a society that views science, logic, and rational thought as the enemy of social progression I'll never know. I'm sure there's money in it somewhere.

amock 16y ago
An increasing average does not mean that the extremes are more extreme. That's a possibility but definitely not a certainty and it could easily be the case that neither extreme changes while the average varies arbitrarily close to them.
gnaritas 16y ago
> If you've taken elementary Math you'll understand that if an average increases that means the extremes of the dataset have gotten more extreme (more extreme colds, more extreme heat). Um, no, it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to raise the average and reduce the extremes. You can tell nothing about the variation in a dataset from the average.
anon2345 16y ago
Climate change is not logical nor is it scientific, whatever happens is construed as evidence of 'climate change'. There's no falsifiable hypothesis.
- ugh 16y ago
  If average (!) temperatures don’t increase over the next few decades (!), climate change is falsified. Easy as that.
nika 16y ago
Since the end of the last solar peak, the planet has been getting cooler. Since the end of the last ice age, the planet has been getting warmer. You can argue whatever direction you want by picking the dates. We came to be a society that views science, logic and rational thought as the enemy of progress because we started letting political ideology substitute for science. It seems a political figure (in this case Al Gore) making the claim plus political bodies putting out junk science (in this case the IPCC) is all the "proof" that is needed to close off from discussion the possibility that it isn't happening for people ideologically predisposed to believe in it. I understand this tendency because I've recognized in myself belief in things that I later realized I couldn't prove. These people are a major political movement in the USA and other parts of the world that sees themselves as having a monopoly on science, reason, logic and rationality, and which believes that their opponents are religious and evil, and therefore, -- quite ironically-- seems to feel that proof, data, argument and science are not necessary. All that seemingly is necessary to this movement is their conviction that this effect is happening. A conviction bolstered by being able to easily point to political propaganda that supports the claim, but that is not scientific. Of course, when one questions the claims made on such sites, the proponents insist that the sites represent "science" and the "deniers" are nobody to question them. (which is argument from authority, and I believe argument from false authority, both logical fallacies.) This makes actual scientific discussion essentially impossible. Look at your post, you made several claims and did so in the tone of it being obvious that what you say is right and consequently anyone who doesn't agree is being irrational. Do you think that glaciers, on the balance are receding or advancing? What ever your opinion, why do you believe it? Because you saw an article somewhere? Or have you reviewed the changes in the length of a statistical sample of glaciers? Actually, do you know how many glaciers make a statistical sample? I don't- I'm not trying to trick you. But if you don't know, how can you know if a study that counted that many is valid? But you're right about one thing. There is money in it. More importantly, control. The politicians want more control, they always do, and cap & trade, CO2 reduction and all these proposals for laws all result in more control. That control is easy to turn into money- just threaten to tighten the screws on whatever industry you want to make a "donation". Al Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire if cap & trade passes and the business he set up for trading carbon credits turns into a real business. Imagine having a near monopoly on intrinsically worthless contracts that suddenly get a lot of value under government regulation, and of course who can trade them and how is also subject to government regulation. I have skepticism about global warming, but I haven't seen enough quality data to reach a conclusion. But I am tired, and I am irritated that I've never seen a global warming advocate who could provide quality data either, yet massive numbers of people believe this, based on political ideology and propaganda, near as I can tell. I'm sure you were sincere in your belief that a higher average means for greater extremes. It kinda sounds like it is a logical conclusion, right? More energy in the system therefore wider variation, right? But it is not scientific, to make the argument requires a hell of a lot more than saying "if you've taken elementary math", which is a mean thing to say if you think about it, right? How many glaciers makes a statistical sample? Serious question. Edit: I tried several times to edit this to make it more concise, but failed miserably, alas.

Luyt 16y ago

The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder. Some places will get more precipitation, other places will become dryer. The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about the history of climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm sorry and I mean this in the least insulting way I can manage but how on earth can you not see the contradiction there? You actually said... The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder. And then one sentence later say... The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about the history of climate An Ice Core is a snapshot of conditions present in the area where the snow that makes it up froze. Weather readings from an Ice Core are only accurate to determine the weather in that one area not the overall climate. I don't even care about the Global Warming angle (every HN thread I've ever seen on the topic just devolves into partisan bickering) but the fact that you can't see that contradiction is disturbing.
- moe 16y ago
  Why not read the wikipedia page he linked before attacking him like that? An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    How would that work? I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? And if it's really possible to determine global climate from one location than why do we have all these weather stations around the world? The answer is "because it isn't possible". Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. Any information determined from that regarding the global climate is extrapolation. The text you quote is describing an extrapolation as an absolute. Or in other words just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true.

zeteo 16y ago

"...scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe." Names? Papers? Dates and predictions?

ugh 16y ago
It’s a newspaper article. Those don’t come with citations and never have. To expect them is just crazy.

cletus 16y ago

Global warming pisses me off because it isn't so much science as it is religion. Whether it gets hotter, colder, drier, wetter or whatever some will take that to be "proof" of global warming just as others will claim the opposite. The really offensive thing to me is the science part. Papers that don't provide facts or, in some cases, sources for their facts, publications that give such shoddy work a free pass because it happens to agree with their editorial stance. Organizations that go out of their say to smear and silence skeptics. The list goes on. Whatever the case climate models have a pretty poor track record when it comes to making predictions. Last month I saw something about climate on Discovery. It was talking about "Snowball Earth", the period nearly 600 million years ago when ice extended to the equator. The show claimed that we could trigger such an event. What's more, snow and ice reflect sunlight that could cause a (excuse the pun) snowball effect: as the ice grows it gets colder. What many seem to forget are two things: 1. What they're describing is called a divergent system. We don't live in such a system because, if we did, the earth would've either frozen solid or boiled away in the last 4 billion years and we wouldn't be here; and 2. The earth is an incredibly complex system with many interplaying variables such that making predictions and identifying cause and effect is incredibly hard. They way I see it, the pro-AGW crowd need to: 1. Prove the earth is warming. This is far from fact. For one, it depends on your point of reference. Compared to 1890 it's warmer and for this reason the link to the Industrial Revolution and fossil fuels likes to be drawn but what about 500 years ago? 5000? 5 million? The earth has been an awful lot hotter than it is now. 2. that warming is man-made; 3. That warming is bad. It'd be bad for some but I guarantee you it'd be good for others. 4. Human intervention can alter the result; 5. That cost isn't prohibitive. as far as I'm concerned we haven't even settled (1) yet. In the meantime those that raise such questions are demonized. Those that benefit from offending industries aren't the least bit interested in the truth either. Instead of science we have politics and religion. But I for one am sick of hearing that whatever happens is somehow proof of global warming.

nika 16y ago
You reference the snowball earth, and I'd like to point out (or emphasize) the opposite applies as well. Many times in the past (as I understand it) CO2 levels have been dramatically higher than they are today. If a runaway greenhouse effect was likely triggered by these tiny increases in CO2 (as proportion of atmosphere) claimed by proponents of AGW, wouldn't it have been triggered in the past, when CO2 levels were vastly higher? Two opposite situations that one could plausibly argue would result in a runaway effect to an extreme equilibrium where humans couldn't survive. They both sound plausible, but despite having experienced both ice ages and dramatically higher CO2 (and temperatures) in the past, the predictions have not happened.

kaffiene 16y ago

Hmm. Software engineers get all pissy when some Pointy Head Boss tells them how to suck eggs because the IT guys are the experts and the marketdroids don't know what they're talking about... but when 90+% of climate scientists say that Global Warming is real and humans are a causal factor then ALL OF A SUDDEN, we're all climate experts and what would those pesky scientists know about it anyway. You guys are really fucking arrogant. I'm ashamed to be associated with you.